Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Sir, I do not propose to restate all the arguments and the reasons for this Bill for that would be burdening the House with a repetition of arguments which have been presented on more than one occasion. In fact, we have had two Second Readings of this Bill. But if I may just recapitulate quickly, the purpose of the Bill is preventive, to nip problems in the bud. It is to prevent matters from escalating and creating tensions, frictions and conflicts between different religious groups. Fortunately, the majority in each religious group in Singapore are conscious of the need to be tolerant and sensitive in our multi-racial society, parti- cularly in the manner they go about practising their faith and persuading others to join them. The problems are usually caused by a small number of people who are either insensitive, thoughtless, irresponsible or worse mischievous, and these few people must not be allowed to jeopardise the precious religious harmony that we have maintained all these years. The full and detailed rationale for the Bill was set out in the White Paper on the "Maintenance of Religious Harmony" presented to this House in December 1989. That White Paper also had a compilation of actual incidents in Singapore which illustrated that the kinds of problems which the Bill addresses are real problems and not academic. We have had a full debate on the Second Reading in February this year on an earlier identical Bill. During that Second Reading, Sir, I said that the views expressed in this House would be considered carefully. In referring the Bill to a Select Committee, I also said that the Government did not take the position that the Bill could not be improved. I welcomed suggestions which could improve the Bill, ideas that could make the Bill more workable, practical and effective. I also said that this must be within certain parameters. The Bill must be a mechanism that enables us to nip problems in the bud and enables quick, prompt and pre-emptive action. I also reminded colleagues that this is not a law to decide religious issues or theological issues. It is a law to ensure public order and to deal with people whose actions can threaten religious harmony. I also listed as another parameter that such matters have to be decided by the Executive and are not matters to be decided either by the religious groups or by the judges. I, therefore, Sir, intend to focus on the Report of the Select Committee and on the amendments made to the Bill by the Committee. Members will know from the Report that the Committee received some 79 written representations, the majority of which were in support of the Bill. From the nearly 20 amendments which the Select Committee has made to the Bill, it must be clear to Members that the Committee has made a serious effort to address the valid concerns expressed to the Committee. The Committee did not just confine themselves to the views put forth by the representors. They also took into account views expressed in this House. Let me give you some examples. Mr Chandra Das suggested that the term "Prohibition Order" should be changed to "Restraining Order" and this has been accepted. Dr Dixie Tan proposed that while the provision on the secrecy of the proceedings of the Presidential Council might be retained, she advocated that the final recommendation of the Council ought to be published. This has also been accepted. Dr John Chen urged that the practice of the Minister consulting Cabinet would be usefully incorporated in the law and this has been accepted. Let me now proceed to discuss the amendments made by the Select Committee. The detailed reasons for the amendments are set out clearly and I would not repeat them. I would categorise the main amendments under the following. First, amendments which address concerns that the Bill frames the individual Minister's powers in rather excessive terms and that there should be additional safeguards. The second category of amendments are those which dealt with concerns that clause 8 of the Bill has language which is subjective in nature and might give rise to difficulties. Third, amendments concerned with the composition of the proposed Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. Fourth, amendments designed to improve the procedures to be followed before the making of an order and after the order is made. The fifth category of amendments are those which dealt with so-called gaps in the original Bill. Let me take the first category, ie, concerns that the Bill was drafted in such a way that the Minister's powers may seem absolute or excessive and that there should be additional safeguards. During the Second Reading in this House, some Members expressed concerns that on such a potentially delicate and sensitive matter as religion, it should not appear that a single Minister has absolute or excessive powers, especially since the Bill also provided that the merits of the decision would not be reviewable in the Courts. A variation of this concern was that a difficult situation may arise when a Minister may have to act on a complaint by a religious group to which he himself belonged. In that situation, even if he had ample grounds to act, some may believe that there was a likelihood of bias. Some of the written representations also echoed these concerns. I had pointed out that in actual practice, no Minister acted alone isolated from Cabinet. Dr John Chen proposed that the reference to Cabinet could be written into the Bill. I said I would be prepared to consider this and I also referred to the model of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act under which the procedure is the Minister first makes the order, it is referred to an Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee makes its recommendation whereupon the President must confirm the order, acting on the advice of the Cabinet. I assured the House that we would discuss this. The Select Committee did take this into account in making a major change to the process of making an order. Under the original Bill, the Minister makes the order. After he has received the representations of the individual and religious organisation, he has to have regard to their views. Likewise, after the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony gives its views, the original Bill prescribes that the Minister would make the decision whether to modify or rescind the order. This has now been revised by the Select Committee. Under the revised procedure, the Minister makes the order in the first instance after sending the Notice to the individual. There is no change there. However, the change is that all orders must be confirmed by the President within 30 days of receipt of the report of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. If the order is not confirmed, it will lapse. The change also is that the President acts on Cabinet's advice except where, as would be provided in the Constitution, Cabinet's advice is contrary to the recommendation of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, in which case, the President, acting in his discretion, can refuse to confirm the order. This would be consistent with the proposed safeguard role of the Elected President in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 3) Bill which is before the House and this will take effect after that amendment is enacted. This important change achieves several objectives. First, it is not just the Minister, but the entire Cabinet which is involved in confirming the order. It formalises what invariably takes place in practice. If I may remind colleagues, Cabinet comprises Ministers belonging to many different faiths. The second advantage is that the President is involved, and the third objective is that it takes into account the proposed additional safeguard role for the Elected President in regard to this Bill. The effect of this is that the recommendations of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony cannot be lightly ignored by the Minister and Cabinet. The second category of amendments are those which address the concern of the element of subjectivity in clause 8. In this regard I will just refer to two amendments. First, the deletion of the phrase in clause 8(1)(a) "prejudicing the maintenance of harmony". This has been deleted and it will meet the concern of those who felt the subjective element in clause 8(1)(a) should be reduced. Likewise, in clause 8(1)(d) the amendment which establishes a nexus between the concept of exciting disaffection and the abuse of religion would meet the concerns of those who felt that that limb was too wide. The third category of amendments is connected with the composition of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. There was a host of ideas and suggestions about the provisions relating to the Presidential Council. The Committee has accepted quite a number of these proposals, for example, there should be a minimum number stipulated, two-thirds of the members should be representatives of religious groups, the terms of office of the Council members ought to be varied subject to a minimum of one year, so that there would be continuity, ie, the whole Council would not be vacated at the same time. Fourthly, there is provision for qualifications and disqualifications for Council members which are modelled on the provisions of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. Provision for a quorum is another example. The fourth category of amendments are those designed to improve the procedures to be followed both before and after an order is made. Amendments in this category are, first, a new provision that when the Minister sends the Notice to the individual of the intention to issue an order, it should be accompanied by grounds and allegations of fact. Secondly, a new provision that the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony is empowered to hear individuals in person if they consider it necessary. Thirdly, every order should be reviewed at least once a year. As regards the fifth category of amendments, several representors thought that in certain respects, there were gaps in the Bill and the Select Committee has made amendments to address these concerns. First, it was pointed out that clause 9 of the Bill was not complete because it did not cover a situation where an individual who was not a member of any religious group, through conduct or speech, nevertheless, caused enmity, hatred, etc, between different religious groups. So an amendment is made to clause 9. Likewise, it was pointed out that the original Bill provided for the Presidential Council for Minority Rights to be involved in the appointment of members of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. But there is no such mention with regard to removal. This is now taken care of by an amendment. Sir, those are some of the amendments which I have touched on. I should also point out, as stated in the Report, that although it was a general principle, which was emphasised during the Second Reading, that the method to tackle this problem cannot be judicial review or to be left to the Court, quite a number of representors made representations advocating that the final recourse should be with the Courts. Opportunity has been taken by the Select Committee to set out in a fairly detailed manner all the reasons why the Select Committee considered that this ought not be the solution. These reasons are fully spelt out in the Select Committee Report and it is unnecessary for me to repeat them. Sir, if I may conclude. What we have in this Bill is really a mechanism which has been crafted to deal with the kind of problems that I summarised at the beginning of my speech. Of course, we can deal with such persons with other legislation that exists. We can take them to the courts, prosecute them, have a criminal conviction, or if their actions are more grave, even to deal with them under the Internal Security Act. But in most cases, a less severe, more limited, measure may suffice. Sir, preserving religious harmony is not just a high sounding goal for us in Singapore. I think it is crucial for our survival as a nation. We are young, we are a small nation with people from many races, religions and languages. We can ill-afford to have religious or racial strife or conflicts which plagued other countries. Just consider the very sad situation in India where many have died and suffered - both Muslims and Hindus - over the dispute concerning the construction of a Hindu Temple in Ayodhya on the site where a mosque now stands. In the last General Elections in 1989, a Hindu-revivalist political party campaigned for the removal of constitutional safeguards for Muslims and that India should be established as a Hindu state. After the elections, the party further exploited the issue to garner political support from the Hindus and proposed to demolish the mosque, built more than 500 years ago, and to build a new Hindu temple. Thus, the dispute not only pitted religious group against religious group, but also was made into a political issue with all the resulting disastrous consequences. The national unity of that country has been threatened. We here cannot and should not judge the merits of that problem. But I am sure all in this House and all Singaporeans will agree with me when I say that we must never allow that to happen here. Imagine that nearly a hundred thousand people had been detained. Imagine such a strife and conflict taking place in Singapore, in our tiny Republic. Where would we find places to detain so many thousands of people? And if it takes place here, would Singapore ever be the same again after such a conflict? I think the answers are obvious. Religious harmony and racial harmony are far too important for us and we cannot take things for granted. The Bill therefore is a preventive measure which we should put in place. I would say that the best case scenario is that no occasion arises where we need to invoke this Bill. But if one day some individuals, irresponsible or just thoughtless or mischievous, embark on a reckless conduct which can threaten religious harmony, then we would have this limited mechanism in place which can be invoked in a restrained manner to ensure that it does not succeed. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.